How dangerous are motorbikes?

antiskeptic

mighty mechanic wrote: »

It comes down to this - you consider biking hell and I don't regardless of any conditions

I don't think it comes down to that, it comes down to you not reading whats being written. I see commuting as war and war-is-hell (hence the analogies) and act appropriately. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

I've forgotten more than most people know but black ice is black ice. No amount of training will help you in that situation.

What situation, the situation where the conditions for black ice exist? I would have thought there was plenty to do in those condition - things that might not to occur to a lad in his first week of biking

nc19

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think it comes down to that, it comes down to you not reading whats being written. I see commuting as war and war-is-hell (hence the analogies) and act appropriately. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

What situation, the situation where the conditions for black ice exist? I would have thought there was plenty to do in those condition - things that might not to occur to a lad in his first week of biking

I see commuting as a way to get where I'm going!! As do most normal well adjusted bikers out there. I keep my eyes open for people like you on bikes and in cars and I drive to my skill level and I love every minute of it. The good and the bad.


The black ice was 10 feet away from a red light. I had no option but to brake for the lights which is when I realised the ice was there. No amount of training would have helped no matter what you say next.

gsxr1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's have a look then..



The bike rider was poorly positioned on the road. It's not in the rules of the road - its in the rules of experience. The cyclist hasn't the opportunity to re-position. Nor does the pedestrian. The biker does.

If the biker without experience want's to 100% blame the car driver for his lack of experience then so be it. And there I was thinking I was being generous!







You're free to advise them to ride in the gutter - because they have "a right of way". Each to their own.





Hi "countries bikers"!

Right . this may be nitpicking now. but what the hell. Im kinda enjoying this thread now.

I would not advise anyone to drive in the gutter.

50% blame was again in theme with your posts OTT.

Said bike could have been taking off or avoiding road paint etc....

.

You seem to be the complete opposite type of biker than myself so I guess we are not going to convince each other.

Even though I'm right:D

antiskeptic

gsxr1 wrote: »

Right . this may be nitpicking now. but what the hell. Im kinda enjoying this thread now.

I would not advise anyone to drive in the gutter.

Neither would I. If they did and they came a cropper then I'd say they contributed to the accident. If they did because they didn't know any better I'd say they still contributed to the accident.

Ignorance isn't much of a defence for anything. Okay the driver glanced and didn't look carefully enough. Ignorance on his part too.

50% blame was again in theme with your posts OTT.

Said bike could have been taking off or avoiding road paint etc....

Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

.

You seem to be the complete opposite type of biker than myself so I guess we are not going to convince each other.

Even though I'm right:D

I just approach things logically and rationally .. and somewhat dispassionately s'all. It can't be helped

antiskeptic

mighty mechanic wrote: »

The black ice was 10 feet away from a red light. I had no option but to brake for the lights which is when I realised the ice was there. No amount of training would have helped no matter what you say next.

The point wasn't that you fell off. Anyone with any level of experience can fall off. The question was whether 10 years of experience could be expected to equip a person to better deal with black ice vs. a bloke in his first week of motorcycling.

I'd say "most certainly" and on a number of fronts: prediction that there would be ice/black ice given knowledge of conditions producing same, manner of applying brakes, reaction to wheel locking up, the absolute requirement to maintain braking viz-a-viz traffic situation...


To be honest, I can't see a whole lot of risk difference between sliding through a red light on my ass and rolling through the same red light upright on two wheels. 25 years experience tells me that the latter represents the better of the two options..

nc19

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point wasn't that you fell off. Anyone with any level of experience can fall off. The question was whether 10 years of experience could be expected to equip a person to better deal with black ice vs. a bloke in his first week of motorcycling.

I'd say "most certainly" and on a number of fronts: prediction that there would be ice/black ice given knowledge of conditions producing same, manner of applying brakes, reaction to wheel locking up, the absolute requirement to maintain braking viz-a-viz traffic situation...


To be honest, I can't see a whole lot of risk difference between sliding through a red light on my ass and rolling through the same red light upright on two wheels. 25 years experience tells me that the latter represents the better of the two options..

Would I be right in saying that you leave your abode every day assuming something will happen and driving defensively as a result? That is no exsistance imo. How do you get on in life?

As I said, I drive to my skill level and am wary of dodgy road users and road conditions and always have done in accordance to my skill level at the time. That skill level has obviously increased over the years.

We'll never agree. Your a biker through need and I'm a biker through want

fj1200

mighty mechanic wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that you leave your abode every day assuming something will happen and driving defensively as a result? That is no exsistance imo. How do you get on in life?

As I said, I drive to my skill level and am wary of dodgy road users and road conditions and always have done in accordance to my skill level at the time. That skill level has obviously increased over the years.

We'll never agree. Your a biker through need and I'm a biker through want

Well said.

@ antiskeptic

Did I read in one of your posts that you crashed due to '' being pissed ''. If thats true you should hang your head in shame and not be on here advising people about the do's and dont's of motorcycle riding.

antiskeptic

mighty mechanic wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that you leave your abode every day assuming something will happen and driving defensively as a result? That is no exsistance imo. How do you get on in life?

If I assumed something would happen I wouldn't (have had: I don't commute by bike daily) leave my abode. I assume nothing will happen because I'm constantly considering the best way to deal with the hazards that continually present themselves and am confident in my ability to win. Riding defensively is an existance in two ways:


- firstly, it increases my chances of existing so as to enjoy non-biking elements of my life with a sound body and brain

- it's enjoyable existance in itself for the challenge it presents.

As I said, I drive to my skill level and am wary of dodgy road users and road conditions and always have done in accordance to my skill level at the time. That skill level has obviously increased over the years.

Of course you are more aware now and I assume you ride more defensively now as a result (even though you seem to look down your nose at "defensive riding" above). Do you expect this awareness to increase over the next ten years and if so, do you expect your riding style to involve more defense. And if not why not?

We'll never agree. Your a biker through need and I'm a biker through want

I don't mind that we don't agree.

How'd you figure me a biker through need? I don't recall saying that.

If you mean that I don't need/want to commute by bike anymore you'd be right. I can't see much fun in a 60 mile round trip on the M50 everyday nor much sense in a 30 mile commuting trip through town - after 7 years of that trip that it's a bit same old same old.

The bike can be kept for the more enjoyable side of riding. The bits I want - not need - to do.

antiskeptic

fj1200 wrote: »

Did I read in one of your posts that you crashed due to '' being pissed ''. If thats true you should hang your head in shame and not be on here advising people about the do's and dont's of motorcycle riding.

Forgive me father for I have sinned...

I waa 18 or 19 at the time and am 45 now. Is there a statute of limitations governing these things in your book?

fj1200

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive me father for I have sinned...

I waa 18 or 19 at the time and am 45 now. Is there a statute of limitations governing these things in your book?

No, in my book it precludes you from having the right to advise anyone about any aspect of driving. That and the fact you drive an Escort.

gsxr1

soantiseptic

how far can you wheelie:D

peasant

and a red card for you too, sir

waraf

Whatever you end up riding be very careful about the type of tyres you put on it. There are some super slick summer tyres available which are brilliant when it's dry but as soon as there's any dampness about at all they'll spit you off into the nearest wall/hedge/oncoming car. Also never, and I mean never get on your bike without a back protector.
I did the exact opposite of everything I have mentioned above and I am a permanent wheelchair user now. The only good thing I did was spend a shed load of cash (500 punts approx) on a helmet and that's the only reason I didn't suffer any head injury at all.
Having said that, bikes are brilliant and you'll never get the same feeling in a car. Just take it easy and enjoy it.

Tayto2000

Antiskeptic, the core of your argument is that there is nothing that can substitute for experience. This is manifestly not true. Training is what must substitute for experience until it can be acquired. If this were not the case, how would we ever ensure that anyone doing any kind of activity that involved risk would survive to gain experience? Your statement assumes that we cannot learn except by doing, this is simply not true.

You dismissed training early on and I'm guessing that since you started over 30 years ago you've never done any. I think if you did some it would surprise you. The focus now is very much on roadcraft which is essentially what you are describing and it can be taught.

It might also interest you to know that riders are statistically at their most likely to have an accident about 2 years in to a biking career. This is at the point where you believe yourself to be experienced but have not yet developed the skills and experience to match this level of confidence. Complete beginners are in fact safer as they have an abundance of caution, tend not to attempt riskier maneuvers such as filtering etc. This can be augmented with taught roadcraft to get them to the point after the 2 years where they become safer through experience. At this point, the accidents that you have been describing become like lightning strikes - the risk is managed through training, experience and gear to the point where they are freak occurences, they do happen but the individual odds are very low.

You are correct up to a point about protective gear - it's not there to substitute for everything else, it's there as a last resort, a tiny stacking of the deck in your favour. It will protect up to a point but it certainly isn't a substitute for not crashing.

Regarding the (in)famous 'Think Bike' ad, it should be stressed that the car driver is 100% legally liable. What you were getting at I think is that the biker should have used their training/experience to anticipate the very real possibility that a car in that position might pull out and violate right of way, it's probably one of the most common causes of bike/car crashes. The rider should respond by adjusting factors in the situation which are under their control appropriately, whether that be by reducing speed, altering road position etc to anticipate this eventuality. This kind of response can be learned through near misses, crashes etc but can also be taught - it's covered ad nauseum in most training texts. Not doing any of this doesn't make the rider in any way liable for the accident, it's the car driver's fault - but there's very little consolation in being in the right and dead.

waraf

In any accident, even if you were completely in the right and the other person completely in the wrong, you must always ask yourself "what could I have done to prevent that accident".

antiskeptic

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Antiskeptic, the core of your argument is that there is nothing that can substitute for experience. This is manifestly not true. Training is what must substitute for experience until it can be acquired. If this were not the case, how would we ever ensure that anyone doing any kind of activity that involved risk would survive to gain experience? Your statement assumes that we cannot learn except by doing, this is simply not true.

You dismissed training early on and I'm guessing that since you started over 30 years ago you've never done any. I think if you did some it would surprise you. The focus now is very much on roadcraft which is essentially what you are describing and it can be taught.

I've not dismissed training per se and I have done a few weekends worth and it does indeed teach things that you'd be a lot longer in picking up were you to figure it out during daily riding.

What we're dealing with however is a (relative) youngster with a fairly limited budget who sounds a damn sight more sensible about these things than I did at that age. For his ilk and below (sense wise) there isn't a whole lot of framework to be hanging training on. That, and the fact that the amount of training we're talking about (budget-wise) is going to be limited renders training something that nibbles at the edges of the problem rather than hits to the core of the problem.

It might also interest you to know that riders are statistically at their most likely to have an accident about 2 years in to a biking career. This is at the point where you believe yourself to be experienced but have not yet developed the skills and experience to match this level of confidence. Complete beginners are in fact safer as they have an abundance of caution, tend not to attempt riskier maneuvers such as filtering etc. This can be augmented with taught roadcraft to get them to the point after the 2 years where they become safer through experience. At this point, the accidents that you have been describing become like lightning strikes - the risk is managed through training, experience and gear to the point where they are freak occurences, they do happen but the individual odds are very low.

What can and can't be done in theory is one thing. What does and doesn't typically happen in fact .. is another. I'm dealing with what could be argued to be a typical case: someone whose asking about the danger but isn't going to be influenced by the danger, whose mindset is geared to buying a start-bike suitable for the off's he expects to have, who'd like to move to a 170kg Ducati Monster asap - albeit restricted - and whose budget is being asked to stretch in a myriad of directions not chief of which is training. The soon-to-be-nature of his motorcycling will be town commuting: the most danger-littered form of motorcycling there is.

No reflection on our subject I might add - I was the one flying down Dame St. with four pints on me.

I gather you've miles under your own belt and a healthy respect for the risks. But forgive me if I'm not all too convinced by the reasonable sounding wrapping.

Regarding the (in)famous 'Think Bike' ad, it should be stressed that the car driver is 100% legally liable. What you were getting at I think is that the biker should have used their training/experience to anticipate the very real possibility that a car in that position might pull out and violate right of way, it's probably one of the most common causes of bike/car crashes. The rider should respond by adjusting factors in the situation which are under their control appropriately, whether that be by reducing speed, altering road position etc to anticipate this eventuality. This kind of response can be learned through near misses, crashes etc but can also be taught - it's covered ad nauseum in most training texts. Not doing any of this doesn't make the rider in any way liable for the accident, it's the car driver's fault - but there's very little consolation in being in the right and dead.

The person who knowingly steps into a high risk pursuit and is prepared to run the risks involved - until such time as training/experience/luck bring him to the safer side of the river - is culpable in his own injury/death. In my view.

Morally, if not legally. It all starts with the decision our friend in the OP has made.

antiskeptic

fj1200 wrote: »

No, in my book it precludes you from having the right to advise anyone about any aspect of driving.

Fair enough Father FJ. 5 Hail Marys and a Glory it'll be then?

That and the fact you drive an Escort.

From a Diversio...I mean FJ....1200 rider? Handbag back at you!

antiskeptic

gsxr1 wrote: »

soantiseptic

how far can you wheelie:D

As long as you like - it's the internet afterall.:)

Tayto2000

Well, I was speaking generally, as your reply given to the OP was a general overview of the biking situation in Ireland (in your opinion)... In a specific case, it is always possible to assess the risk more accurately. I would agree that there are a couple of red flags here, going straight for a high powered machine being number one in my book.

There is a degree of danger in motorcycling, I don't think there's any argument about that, and taking it up does involve a certain amount of risk acceptance, but this doesn't automatically make you culpable in the event of an accident and there are steps you can take to mitigate the danger.

I also fundamentally disagree with your assertion that nothing can really be done about the risk other than somehow becoming very experienced overnight. My point is that is possible to manage the risk to the point where it becomes acceptable. Ways of managing the risk include starting with a small machine, getting training, wearing the appropriate gear etc etc. It's up to the individual as to what level of risk they are willing to accept however and I guess in your case that you deemed it too high to continue riding.

Idleater

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which hazard do you hate most. The one against which you reckon theres virtually no defence I mean?

The one I hate the most is going to be the one I see too late.

In my view no one is ever finished learning, so my hope is that I continue to learn by only making small mistakes rather than big ones.

I suppose the hazard I hate the most is me.

With all your years riding you might want to convey your points a bit better rather than being a pedant to others who are trying to be constructive.

You seem to have successfully turned many fellow bikers off taking your opinions seriously. Must go see if you share your opinions as well on other biker sites around...

L.

salysol

antiskeptic wrote: »

25 years of 365 riding in the bag and this is what I'd have to say.


1) That 25 years of experience has not only revealed motorcycling (especially town commuting motorcycling) to be the equivilent of walking point duty in Vietnam, it's also taught me how to maximise the chances of survival whilst walking point duty in Vietnam.

2) Without that 25 years (or at least a good chunk of it) under your belt you're like a lamb to the slaughter. The dangers are so numerous, so subtle , so ever present - you're literally walking across a minefield blindfold. Even if your a sensible type who knows that bikes need to be treated with respect you're only a whisker ahead of the youth who thinks he can nail it open and head for the horizon. You simply can't see the danger when you've no experience and the only true way you'll learn about it is through near misses and/or accidents.

Which presents you with the very best reason to stay clear of motorcycles. The dilemma which is impossible to resolve.

"You can't ensure a reasonable chance of healthy survival without gaining experience. You can't gain the experience necessary to ensure healty survival without first running unacceptable risks".

The usual way this dilemma is overcome is to be young, stupid and fortunate enough to survive long enough. Many don't survive it. Many more are permanently and painfully disabled by it.


3) In order to be injured in a car crash you have be very unlucky or crash at reasonably high speed. Every incident on a motorcycle lends itself to potentially horrific injuries or death. A driver opens his door to empty his ashtray in stopped traffic, your driving gingerly by at 10mph, get knocked off by him ... and your legs are run over by a truck coming the opposite way. The world abounds with motorcyclists who haven't been killed or paralysed from the neck down. They've just smashed limbs and incurred permanent nerve damage and can look forward to those injuries debilitating their lives as they get older.

4) Rider training won't do it for you. It's better than nothing but it just can't cut the risk to acceptable level.

5) In skilled hands the right bike for the job can be rendered a reasonably safe beast. Wet, greasy cold roads - the like which you'd see a lot of if town commuting is your game - calls for the very best of skills and the greatest levels of alertness. If you'd balk at the notion of riding around at town speeds in the wet with no brakes - for such is the level of predictive skill required to ride safely in the wet - then commuting motorcycling isn't for you

6) I commuted Bray/Finglas/Bray for 7 years. Every few of days you'd see a bent moped/motorcycle leaning against a railing with debris from the recent collision littering the buslane.

7) Bike gear won't protect you from moderate to serious injury. You stop road rash and cracking your skull open .. is all. There's plenty more to injure that just your skin and your skull.

8) The chances are high that if you start out riding a bike you'll fall-off/crash - I don't know anyone who hasn't. The chances are also high that you'll get away with mild-moderate injury in those crashes. However, there is nothing separating getting a minor injury from getting a quality-of-life-destroying injury... except luck (or God whether you believe in him or not). You asked what folks most serious injury was? The front wheel of my motorcycle locked up at 80mph flinging me to the deck where I slid along - on my side of the road - for a couple of hundred yards. I knocked a 2 euro sized piece of flesh from one kneecap which only required a few stitches. A lad down the road from me T-boned a car pulling out of a side road at around 30mph and is spending the rest of his life in a wheel chair.

9) Biking isn't "fun". It's a serious game where the enjoyment comes from recognising the risk, managing the risk and commanding the terrain your in. It's exhilerating in that sense. But not fun as such - your too busy concentrating to have fun. If it is being considered as fun then you're likely in serious danger.

10) If your bike commute is a town one taking (you say) a half an hour then a bicycle will get you there quicker - you don't have to stop at lights on a pushbike. You'll save time not having to struggle in and out of all that heavy gear either.

Don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed bikes tremendously but knowing what I know about the risks facing the inexperienced, I wouldn't advise my worst enemy to take it up.

with out being offensive,as a few of your points are relevent,but if some one is looking for sensible, sound ,advice,you try to help ,but to frighten the ****e outa them is uncalled for,trial and error is a fact of life,and its something you need to fathom for yourself,you learn from your mistakes,we all make them ,so let him get the lessons,buy the bike,enjoy the freedom it will bring him.and stop being so fekken morbid.as for telling him to go through red lights on a pushbike ! what kinda advice is that !

fj1200

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough Father FJ. 5 Hail Marys and a Glory it'll be then?




From a Diversio...I mean FJ....1200 rider? Handbag back at you!

From a Diversio? What are on about?

antiskeptic

salysol wrote: »

with out being offensive,as a few of your points are relevent,but if some one is looking for sensible, sound ,advice,you try to help ,but to frighten the ****e outa them is uncalled for,trial and error is a fact of life,and its something you need to fathom for yourself,you learn from your mistakes,we all make them ,so let him get the lessons,buy the bike,enjoy the freedom it will bring him.and stop being so fekken morbid.as for telling him to go through red lights on a pushbike ! what kinda advice is that !

The view I have regarding the risks (of learner in town commuting especially) is the view I have - I'm not likely to be diverted from it by the much of objection so far, which revolves around my singlehanded attempt to bring Irish biking culture down in flames (or so the story is supposed to be go)

Nor have I any desire to be the one to single handedly influence a person into forgoing motorcycling altogether. What I would prefer to convey is the extent of what I reckon is the very real bone/nerve/psyche destroying risk glossed over by the weight of comment here. Call it a voice in the wilderness if you like.


_____________

If you can't figure out how to go through red lights on a push bike without coming a cropper then you've no business stepping onto a motorcycle - something that is going to require a somewhat greater degree of smarts. I'm not talking about nor am I concerned with the legal aspects of doing so - anymore than I am with the legal aspects of riding in buslanes.

Highsider

Only as dangerous as the pilot wants it to be.

antiskeptic

fj1200 wrote: »

From a Diversio? What are on about?

FJ1200 = Divvie 1200? As in Yamaha Diversion. A Diversion of any cc = a bit of a turd. Handbag thrown at a handbag thrower?

antiskeptic

Highsider wrote: »

Only as dangerous as the pilot wants it to be.

Praise the Lord. A war reference!!

antiskeptic

nereid wrote: »

The one I hate the most is going to be the one I see too late.

I see them too late from time to time for whatever reason. But end up escaping for one reason or another. Those are the ones that shake me up - the ones where I didn't see it coming.

In my view no one is ever finished learning, so my hope is that I continue to learn by only making small mistakes rather than big ones.

Indeed.

With all your years riding you might want to convey your points a bit better rather than being a pedant to others who are trying to be constructive.

For example?

You seem to have successfully turned many fellow bikers off taking your opinions seriously. Must go see if you share your opinions as well on other biker sites around...

I happen to represent a view that the "real biker" section of the biking community is going to dislike however it's presented precisely because those views are seen as coming from the same quarter as the other side: cagers/taxis/government/insurance companies.

That doesn't cause me a moments worry given that I'm not addressing members of that fraternity but folk who are considering entering biking.

nc19

antiskeptic wrote: »

How'd you figure me a biker through need? I don't recall saying that.

If you mean that I don't need/want to commute by bike anymore you'd be right. I can't see much fun in a 60 mile round trip on the M50 everyday nor much sense in a 30 mile commuting trip through town - after 7 years of that trip that it's a bit same old same old.

The bike can be kept for the more enjoyable side of riding. The bits I want - not need - to do.

you have been a biker through need as a courier.


the fact that you would choose a car over a bike with all the traffic on the M50 just epitomizes the type of biker are. This fact alone disqualifies you from advising anyone about biking imo.

Now I'm off to ride my bike just for the hell of it. You do the internet a favour and step away from the computer. I can hear your pipe and slippers calling

antiskeptic

Tayto2000 wrote: »

There is a degree of danger in motorcycling, I don't think there's any argument about that, and taking it up does involve a certain amount of risk acceptance, but this doesn't automatically make you culpable in the event of an accident and there are steps you can take to mitigate the danger.

The case under examination was a video in which the rider is kerb-hugging as he approachs the car he subsequently tee-bones. Both you and I know where we'd be in that scenario: much closer to the white line in order to assist the driver in seeing us/creating escape space.

The rider either wasn't applying the correct "procedure" he knew (assuming he hadn't just avoided a dog that had him skirting the kerb :rolleyes:) or he didn't know the correct procedure in the first place.

Whether it is his ignoring good practice or his ignorance of good practice, he has contributed to the state of affairs (50% I'm posing) in a moral, not legal, sense.

Given that he has been warned that motorcycling will involve a myriad of such risks, ones that will remain opaque until such time as training/experience wipes the fog away, what reason do you suggest for absolving him of his 50% culpability

I also fundamentally disagree with your assertion that nothing can really be done about the risk other than somehow becoming very experienced overnight. My point is that is possible to manage the risk to the point where it becomes acceptable. Ways of managing the risk include starting with a small machine, getting training, wearing the appropriate gear etc etc.

The OP (on whom the discussion is based) wants to beat the commuting traffic. This means bus lanes, filtering of all sorts, wet greasy roads, night riding in rush hour, a 125 candle of headlight (in the case of this putative small machine your suggesting). All at 22 years of age. All with a modicum of training. All with some textile jacket whose elbow pads you can spin around your arm 3 times without cutting off the circulation.

The reality in other words.

It's up to the individual as to what level of risk they are willing to accept however and I guess in your case that you deemed it too high to continue riding.

Not at all. Experience curtails the risk to acceptable levels. I'm just not into having a boring daily M50 commute ruin my pride and joy. Besides, after a lifetime on bikes, L'Escort is a bit of a novelty in the luxary stakes. A 1400cc slug, granted. But luxury for all that.

fj1200

antiskeptic wrote: »

FJ1200 = Divvie 1200? As in Yamaha Diversion. . Handbag thrown at a handbag thrower?

A Diversion of any cc = a bit of a turd. Bit like an escort? Diversions go to 900cc. You've riden many fj1200's with stage two dynojet kit and hand made stainless four into one?